§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,) Stirling Burghs,
in moving a Resolution allocating the time to be devoted to the discussion of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill, said he hoped the House would admit the necessity for his Motion under the circum stances in which they stood. It seemed to him that they were all agreed as to the object of the Bill. [Cries of "No."] Well, he thought it was admitted on all hands that the making of provision for evicted tenants or their representatives was an essential part of the scheme of legislation and that without such provision it was acknowledged that the agrarian question could not be settled or put in a fair way of settlement. Therefore, if the Act of 1903 was to accomplish what was expected of it, it was important that this question should be dealt with. The means adopted to obtain this end had been voluntary means, but the Bill now before the House proposed to go further than that, and complete the work of the Act of 1903 by applying compulsion in those cases where voluntary effort had failed. There was no need for him to quote figures to the House; with these statistics hon. Members were quite familiar. The difference between the two sides of the House was not the end they had in view and what they all desired to see fulfilled, but the means by which that end was to be brought about. The Government felt that it would be a most unhappy thing if the good intentions of the Act of 1903 were defeated for want of effectual means to carry them out. The Bill before them proposed to apply the principle of compulsion, not only in regard to untenanted land but also in regard to land occupied by tenants who happened to hold holdings from which previous tenants had been evicted. The discussion on Wednesday last wandered over a wide field and although it only disposed formally of the first three lines of Clause 1 it took so wide a range that the questions of compulsion and expropriation were fully discussed and the Chairman virtually warned the House that the discussion should be taken as disposing of these two questions. That being so there remained for further discussion the other heads of the Bill, and the time table he submitted 1193 to the House provided, in his opinion, ample time for their discus non. There was the discussion on the tribunal which was to determine the particulars of land taken compulsorily, and also to fix the amount of compensation to be awarded to dispossessed tenants; there was the question of finance, not, he thought, a very widely controversial matter: and the remaining point was the change of tenure of the Estates Commissioners. So that the net result was of the five main heads under which the Bill was founded, two of them had already been discussed, and for the remaining three substantially important subjects, the Government felt justified in coming to the conclusion that the time assigned under his Resolution would be amply sufficient. They were not altogether without experience in this matter, and whatever opinion might be entertained with regard to this time table system, in a case like the one before them it did answer its purpose, viz., to prevent aimless and unnecessary expenditure of time in general discussion; whilst, on the other hand, it gave sufficient time for discussion on each particular point, and had the effect of riveting the attention of the Committee upon those points. He submitted his Resolution to the House confident of their approval.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee stage and Report stage of the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill, including the Financial Resolution relating thereto, shall be proceeded with in the following manner:—(a) that Clauses 1 and 2 and the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, if and so far as not previously disposed of, be proceeded with and proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on the first allotted day; (b) that the Report stage of the Financial Resolution and the remaining clauses of the Bill, and any new Government clauses and any new Government schedules, and any other matter necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion (if and so far as not previously disposed of), be proceeded with and brought to a conclusion on the second allotted day, and that the Chair man report the Bill to the House without Question put; (c) chat one allotted day be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and that all matters necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion be 1194 proceeded with, and the proceedings thereon brought to a conclusion on that day. After this order comes into operation, any day (other than Friday) shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this order on which the Evicted Tenants (Ireland) Bill is put down as the first Order of the Day, or on which any stage of the Financial Resolution relating thereto is put down as the first Order of the Day, followed by the Bill. At 10.30 p.m. on any allotted day on which proceedings on any business allotted to that day are brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Speaker shall, if those proceedings have not already been brought to a conclusion, put forthwith the Question or Questions on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed successively to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new clauses or schedules he-shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the clause or schedule be added to the Bill, as the case may be. Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. on any allotted day shall, instead of being taken on that day as provided by the Standing Order "Time for taking Private Business," be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on he Bill for that day, and any Private Business so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding the Standing Order "Sittings of the House." At 11 p.m. on the day on which the Third Reading of the Bill is put down as first Order of the Day, or if that day is a Friday at 5 p.m., the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that stage of the Bill. Proceedings to which this order relates shall not, on any day on which any proceedings or business are to be brought to a conclusion under this order, be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House. After the passing of this order, on any day on which any proceedings on the Evicted Tenants (Ire land) Bill (including the Financial Resolution relating thereto) stand as first 1195 Order of the Day, no dilatory Motion on the Bill, nor Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order 10, nor Motion to pospone a clause, shall be received unless moved by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without debate."—(Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.)
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said the Prime Minister had got so accustomed to moving these Resolutions, and the House had got so familiar with them, that he did not seem to regard it as in the least necessary to make any serious attempt to defend the proposals he made. Habit had come to his assistance, and now he thought five or six minutes were enough to recommend a guillotine Resolution which formerly he and his Party spent hours in denouncing, and now he regarded it as the most natural thing in the world for the House to deprive itself, not once, but constantly and perpetually, of all its rights of discussion and debate. Some times the right hon. Gentleman moved it before debate had commenced at all, and sometimes after the debate had continued for a night; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman's patience had ever extended over two nights before he came down to the House and asked them to give him these exceptional and usually abused powers. He for one had not for many years been prepared to maintain that the House could wholly do without these exceptional measures, but there was a great distinction between using them exceptionally and using them without any provocation as part of the ordinary routine business of the day. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with them as he usually dealt with the Eleven o'clock Rule, which was suspended without pro vocation. Those Members who had had experience of previous Parliaments would agree that, while the guillotine by compartments had been used by successive Governments for a long period, it had never been applied in the manner or to the extent to which the right hon. Gentle man now used it. He remembered two great controversial Bills, one brought in by a Radical Government, the Parish Councils Bill, and the other by a Unionist Government, the Education Bill of 1902. In the case of the Parish Councils Bill they had thirty-four days in Committee, and in the case of the Education Bill he believed they had forty days in Com- 1196 mittee. It had been reserved to this Government in the last session and in this to come down, and without justification, reason, or adequate public necessity, and before the discussion had either begun at all or when it had gone only a little way, to say, We cannot allow the House fully to discuss our measure; we must apply closure by compartments. The statement of the right hon. Gentle man that closure by compartments had the great advantage of concentrating the attention of the House upon the really important matters was a ludicrously inaccurate account of what took place. One of the grave objections, indeed, to this method of procedure was that it did not concentrate attention on the important parts of a Bill. There had never yet been a case to his knowledge when under such conditions the important points really had been discussed. Let them take the right hon. Gentleman's last effort in this direction, when it was moved in regard to the Territorial and Reserve Forces Bill. There were vast fragments of that measure which were never discussed either in the Committee stage or on Report. Public attention was not focussed on those points, and the Government escaped the pile of criticism to which their predecessors were subjected. No doubt this procedure saved the Government—not very careful draftsmen as a rule in framing their measures—a great many of the inevitable consequences of criticism. It enabled them to escape from many difficult positions without suffering defeats at the hands, not of the Opposition, who were too small a band to be able to defeat the Government on Committee points, but of lion. Gentlemen opposite, who, although they did not always agree upon the details of the measures brought in by their leaders, did always agree in preventing those details being discussed. Their ideal was that the voting should take place in this House and all the discussion in another place—that all the power should be here and all the debates there. That was their method of filling up the cup. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the rather airy and sanguine spirit in which he had addressed himself to his Motion, must himself be conscious that under his leadership last session and this the House had become familiar with this method of procedure, so that it now considered it part of its ordinary practice 1197 and not an exceptional measure to be debated and justified. The drug which had to be administered to the House by the previous Government, the right hon. Gentleman now gave them as their daily food. He was rather amused at the cheers which greeted the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman when he said that he was going to give ample time to the discusssion of the Bill. When he reflected on the political and Parliamentary principles of the able and energetic Party which represented the Nationalists of Ireland as to the time that ought to be taken in discussing measures, their amazing fertility of objection, their amplitude of rhetorical effort, which he was the first to recognise; when he heard them cheer the closure on an Irish Bill, dealing with Irish questions, which has been debated for eight hours, and for which only two more days were to be allowed for the Committee stage and one for Report, he was forced to say how differently they estimated the necessity for discussing a measure when Members from the North of Ireland were anxious to discuss it.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
said that was a question it was not necesary to go into. What he was endeavouring to point out was that the same power of eloquence existed among his hon. friends who represented the North of Ireland, and they claimed the same right of discussion as lion. Members below the gangway. There should be some possibility of comparison between the two cases, some parity of treatment extended to those who represented other constituencies in Ireland. Whenever a Government responsible for business came forward with a proposal of this kind the majority would, of course, support them. But he respectfully said to the House that for two sessions now they had been on an inclined plane in respect of those measures for stopping debate. If the process was allowed to go on much longer and was allowed to become the habitual practice of the House, its powers over the details of legislation would have gone for ever. Not only was it handing over, in effect the legislation of the country in all its details to Ministers, who, conscious that their legislative efforts would not be subjected 1198 to any minute revision, would become more and more reckless, not only in form, but in the substance of the measures they brought forward, but it would add neither to the dignity, to the utility, nor to the interest of the House.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
said that he had listened for a long time to the kind of speech just delivered, the indignant protest of the champion of free discussion in the House. The right hon. Gentleman was perhaps the most interesting speaker in the House, and the delight must be great of new Members of the House to hear the protests of the champion of free discussion and the solemn denunciations of the right hon. Gentleman. But it was not easy to forget the right hon. Gentleman's antecedents in this respect. Ho of all men in the House was a past master in bringing forward this kind of Motion. ["No., no."] For years the Nationalist and other Members had suffered from the action of the right hon. Gentleman when he was in power in depriving the House of every shred of freedom of discussion. But on the general question the right hon. Gentleman—supposing that they could take him seriously—took up a position which ought to command the serious consideration of the House. They had now come to the pass that not with standing all their new rules and the constant use of the closure no Government, even supported with an over whelming majority, could hope to pass serious and contentious measures without the use of devices of this kind. The House of Commons would never recover its rights of free speech by any set of rules they chose to devise. The only way was by lightening the load of business, which weighed heavier and heavier on the House. The Irish Members had fought against coercion for Ireland and the suspension of the right of trial by jury, but whom a measure was introduced to benefit Ireland the right hon. Gentleman was scandalised to find that the Nationalist Party did not offer the same kind of opposition as they had formerly offered to coercion. What was the case for or against this particular application of the closure? The right hon. Gentleman twitted the Prime Minister with having made a speech of only five minutes in justification of his proposal. But the justification of the Motion was to be found not in 1199 the five minutes speech of to-day, but in the first night's proceedings in Committee on the Bill. The proceedings of last Wednesday constituted the speech in support of this Motion, Before they were allowed to consider or discuss one single syllable in the Bill, they were met by a dilatory Motion to report progress, which they were told by the mover of it was not a serious Motion, and was only intended for the purpose of having a general discussion of those Amendments on which they desired to know what the action of the Government would be. It seemed to him to be a most irregular Motion and a most irregular discussion. But having elicited a statement from the Government they then proceeded further to discuss the Motion, and to show how earnest they were about it, they actually divided when the question was put from the Chair. What were the proceedings during the evening? The right hon. Gentleman was surprised that he him self had spoken only once. Again, the right hon. Gentleman must take them for fools. It was not only the Ulster Members. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the necessity of giving time to the Ulster Members. Ulster Members had taken up very little time. The time was largely taken up by a number of English Members on the benches above the Opposition gangway, the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and men of that character. The hon. Baronet would acquit him of any desire to say anything offensive to him, but what he had in his mind was the character which the hon. Baronet had given of himself at the last election, when he said to his constituents in the City of London that his great recommendation for Parliament was that he was able to speak at any time, on anything, and for any length. It was hon. Members of that kind who had continued the discussion on Wednesday and all through the evening, and it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that the Chairman of Committees had repeatedly to intervene to protest against irrelevance and repetition. And so the evening went on, and the Leader of the Opposition was surprised that he and his friends did not take a hand to help that kind of obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman had not made any case whatever against this Motion. And for- 1200 sooth, he had spoken—it was laughable almost—about the precedents of the Parish Councils Bill and the Education Bill of 1902, and asked why they were only giving three days to this Bill, when thirty days were given in Committee on the Parish Councils Bill, and he did not know how many days in Committee on the Education Bill. But what possible parity was there between the two cases? This short measure was a simple Bill which merely carried into effect the pledge given by the Tory Party and the landlord party in that House in 1903 to restore the evicted tenants in Ireland to their homes, an object which they had pledged themselves to carry out, and without that pledge the Land Act of 1903, as they knew well, would never have been carried at all. On the object of the Bill the Prime Minister was right in saying there was complete agreement. Was there a man from Ulster, or the City of London, or elsewhere, who would get up and say that he was against the object of this Bill? Then it was a Bill on which they were agreed.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)
I have no hesitation in getting up in my place and stating that I am utterly against the objects of this Bill, which I take to be a Bill for taking away land—
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
said nobody accused the hon. Gentleman of a want of courage; he was against the object of the Bill—that was, against the carrying out of the pledge given by the landlord and Tory Party in Ireland that they would, as part of the bargain of 1903, restore the evicted tenants to their farms. There were only two or three contentious points in the Bill. One of them was the question of compulsion. As the Prime Minister had rightly said, that was discussed at great length, a decision was come to, and the Chairman of Committees declared that he would not permit a second discussion on the point. The next great contentious principle was that compulsion should be applied to that class of men who were called "grabbers" or "planters" in Ire land. That also was discussed at great length, a decision was come to upon it and it was disposed of. All that remained to be discussed was the tribunal to decide upon the price, the alteration of 1201 the tenure of the Estates Commissioners, and one or two comparatively trifling matters in addition. He therefore asserted that the serious and important questions had already been discussed and decided.
§ *MR. SPEAKER
This is not the time to correct a statement. If the hon. Member wishes to do that the House, I am sure, will hear him afterwards.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
said that he had practically finished. He merely wished to say that the really contentious points in the Bill, certainly the most serious and contentious, had been disposed of. The remaining points could easily be disposed of after the fullest amount of discussion in the time proposed by the Resolution, and when the right hon. Gentlemen indicated as he did in his speech that really the Motion was not necessary at all, and that there was no intention to have a long discussion, and that without the Motion the discussion would be confined within proper limits—if that was his view and it had been communicated to the Government this Motion would never have been moved. But they were in this position. They were coming to the end of the session. It was a matter of the most vital importance in Ireland for the sake not only of the limited class of people known as the evicted tenants, but of the whole country and the peace of the whole country during the coming winter that this Bill should be passed, and the Government would be wanting in their duty if they hesitated to take steps to secure that it would be passed within a reasonable time. He trusted that under the circumstances the House would pass the Bill, that they would pass it speedily, and that with that object in view they would come to the calm consideration of those portions of the Bill which remained to be discussed. Besides, they would find it was only a small section of the Irish Members who had any objection to the Bill, that the opposition came largely from English Members and that not only the West and South of Ireland, but almost the entire representation of Ire- 1202 land in that House, with very few exceptions, was anxious to see it carried into law.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)
said they had not been given a single instance where a guillotine Motion of this character had been brought forward under similar circumstances, and before such a proposal was submitted they ought to have been furnished with some precedent for bringing it forward in such a manner. So far as the actual Bill was concerned, he thought they had received a sufficient answer both in the speeches of the Prime Minister and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, because the right hon. Gentleman, supported by the hon. and learned Gentleman, had said that on Wednesday the two great principles of the Bill had been disposed of; and after that statement no one could accuse those on that side of the House of having been guilty of obstruction in discussing the proposals of the measure. But with his great experience, the right hon. Gentleman knew that the Second Reading was the occasion for raising objections to principle, and in Committee they had to deal with the details, to which many hon. Members at once saw reason to object, some of them being entirely novel. Two or three things had happened this session which really lifted this matter into a rather different light. They had recently had a discussion, the text of which was that the voice of the House of Commons ought to prevail; but the Government had consistently said in connection with every important Bill they had brought forward, not that the voice of the House of Commons was to prevail, but that it was to be muzzled in order to prevent proper discussion. Under the closure by allotted days the questions on which the Government had difficulties were nearly always relegated to that particular half-hour in the evening when they had their majority behind them, when arguments could not be used, and when the Opposition were powerless. It was rather curious that the Government which said that the voice of the House of Commons should prevail had done so much to remove legislation from the control of the House by preventing discussion. The debate on the Standing Orders was guillotined, and when Bills were allowed to remain in Committee of the Whole House, as, for example, 1203 the Army Bill, the Insect Pests Bill, and now the Evicted Tenants Bill, the use of the guillotine prevented that full consideration and discussion which they had a right to claim. They were bound to refer to these considerations which had arisen for the first time this session. They were quite justified in asking for a fuller explanation from the Prime Minister, who had been so closely connected with matters relating to procedure in the House. What was there to make this subject a matter of urgency? There had been no obstruction this session and no waste of time; therefore, the entire responsibility was with the Government, because they had allowed the session to get nearly to the end of July without bringing forward their Bills. The Government had mismanaged their programme, and the Prime Minister was now asking for an entirely new form of procedure. He thought they were fully justified in opposing this attempt to guillotine all reasonable discussion.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
remarked that the Prime Minister in moving the Motion had said that all parties in the House were practically agreed upon the object of the Bill. He thought Unionist Members for Ireland and Unionist Members generally had made it amply plain that they were not so agreed. If they were all agreed upon the matter where would be the necessity for the Resolution? The hon. Member for Waterford had endeavoured to convince the House that the object of the Bill was simply to reinstate evicted ten ants. That was the object of the Bill of 1903; the object of this Bill was to allow the Estates Commissioners to acquire tenanted and other land compulsorily. It was misleading the House to say that the primary and essential object of the Bill was the reinstatement of evicted ten ants. It was upon those two grounds chiefly that Unionist Members, and especially Irish Unionist Members, objected to the Bill, and, therefore, to any closure by compartment Resolution being passed in respect of it. The hon. Member for Waterford had called it a short, simple Bill, but it contained some seventeen or eighteen clauses introducing the new principle of compulsion in the acquisition of land in Ireland, which everybody knew perfectly well would lead from provid- 1204 ing land for evicted tenants to providing land for congested districts, and thence in a short time to the transference of land generally from the landlord to the tenant. That might be all right and proper, but he and his friends maintained that that was a question of such magnitude and a question so directly excluded from the Act of 1903, that a Bill containing that principle should be given the fullest discussion. The discussion should not be cut down to a paltry day or two as was proposed. They all knew why the Government had pro posed the Resolution. The chief reason was that they had delayed to such an inordinately late time the introduction of the Bill. The House would agree with him that to introduce one of the first-class measures of the session at such a late day was not fair. It was not to be expected that the Bill could receive due and proper discussion if the session was to end at anything like the ordinary time. He had tried to point out to the House at the earlier stages of the Bill that it was not asked for. The evicted tenants clauses in the Act of 1903 were working to the satisfaction of everybody except apparently the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the Estates Commissioners, and the hon. Member for Waterford. Everybody else realised that those clauses were doing all that was expected of them. It seemed to be very much out of place for the hon. Member for Waterford to get up each day as he had done in the various debates on the Bill, and to throw the onus on Unionist Members for opposing the Bill. The reasonable view which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford ought to take was that they were precluded from asking for the powers conferred by this Bill because at the passing of the Act of 1903 they were given a measure which came up to their demands and expectations, and under which a very much larger number of evicted tenants had been provided for than the Nationalist Party ever thought existed. During the debates upon the Bill of 1903 the number of evicted tenants to be provided for was put at between 400 and 800, but the Chief Secretary had informed them that already over 1,000 had been dealt with under that Act. The Unionist Members from Ireland, although they were comparatively few, represented one-third of the population, and they maintained that there was no necessity for 1205 the Bill. The Act of 1903, every line of which was agreed to by Nationalists and Liberals alike, was accepted as a settlement, and from that day to this there had been no demand made that compulsory powers should be given to the Estates Commissioners. That body seemed to have suddenly discovered a pressing necessity for compulsory powers, although they were receiving daily accounts from both landlords and tenants an Ireland of the hardships and the injustice which were being inflicted under the present system of reinstating these tenants. He could cite cases in which the most undesirable class of tenants were being reinstated—men who owed from six to nine years rent, not on account of any political fight, but simply because they had turned out to be quite incapable of farming their land to advantage. For those reasons he failed to see where the necessity arose for giving the Commissioners greater powers than they now possessed. The Prime Minister had said the necessity for such a Bill as this was agreed to by all sides of the House, but it passed his comprehension how any person could make such a statement as that, because the Unionist Members from Ireland had opposed the Bill strenuously on the First Reading and upon each succeeding stage. The right hon. Gentleman had harped upon the old point that they all desired to seethe evicted tenants reinstated. It was quite true that they all desired to see the respectable evicted tenants reinstated, but he con tended that the greater number of 'them had already been reinstated, and therefore there was no necessity to grant compulsory powers for the purpose. They also objected to the Bill because of the power which it gave and which they maintained would be exercised—although the Chief Secretary desired that the power should not be exercised—by the Estates Commissioners to turn out perfectly respectable new tenants who were now occupying farms formerly in possession of evicted tenants. He and his friends sincerely believed, and in fact it was admitted the other night by the Attorney General for Ireland, that many of these so-called new tenants would be turned out bag and baggage and that other farms would be provided for them. The Unionist Members could not stand by and see a 1206 law passed which would enable two or three Commissioners to go down to such a man as he had described and say, "You must leave this farm because the man who had it before you desires to come back. So far as we can see there can be no hope of peace in this district so long as you occupy the farm." The Chief Secretary described this man as obstinate and as a centre of disturbance. He and his friends took the view that if one of these farms was held in a legal way and especially if he—
§ *MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member's remarks refer to the provisions of the Bill, and they are not relevant to the Resolution now before the House.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
said he would only add that they had been told that the two great questions of compulsion and the taking of untenanted land had been fully discussed the other day. He did not admit that. The discussion of those two great principles was disposed of in seven hours, and it was because the Prime Minister's Resolution would shorten debate on the most important points that he objected to it.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)
called attention to the fact that forty Members were not present. House counted; and, forty Members being found present—
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIG
said he resented the tone in which the Prime Minister said it would be an unhappy thing if the good intentions of the Act of 1903 should fail. The right hon. Gentle man had based his proposal for the undue limitation of the discussion of this Bill on the desire that the failure of the Act of 1903 should be prevented. He could tell the Prime Minister that he had heard different stories in regard to the Act of 1903. It was not failing; it was doing its work well, subject to one drawback, namely, that they had not enough money to carry it out. If the right hon. Gentleman would only give the Act of 1903—the evicted tenants clauses as well as the others—a fair trial for a few years, not only would the tenants of Ireland become owners of their farms, but the evicted tenants would be quietly and satisfactorily settled on holdings.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,) Bristol, N.
said the hon. Member for South Antrim made a number of well-reasoned speeches the other day in which he pointed out with perfect truth that the substance of this Bill was to be found in the compulsory powers to reinstate the evicted tenants and in the compulsory powers given to the tribunal to acquire untenanted land. He stated his objection to both these things with great argumentative force, and he was quite justified in doing so. The hon. Gentleman had repeated his objections to day. He had said he vehemently objected to the Bill, and of course he was entitled to object. But the fact that he objected to the Bill was no reason why he should go on repeating day after day the badness of the Bill. The badness of a Bill was not the measure of the length of time at which it should be discussed. The House had discussed the Bill on the Second Reading and on the first day of the Committee stage. On those occasions the two most import ant points were discussed at such length as to disentitle him or any other Members to reopen or repeat those points. It was a mistake for the Opposition to think that because the Bill was a bad one they should be allowed great length of time for its discussion. The only difficulty he felt about the Motion of the Prime Minister was that it almost seemed to be something in the nature of an insult to the House to suppose that any rational body of men would wish to; occupy more than three days in the discussion of what was left of this measure, Of course, as he had said already, if the vehemence of the Opposition entailed' weeks and months of discussion, the de bate might go on to the crack of doom. When they had discussed one point let them proceed to the next. All he could say was that, if three days were not enough for the Committee stage and the Report stage of this Bill, then there was an end of Parliamentary discussion in that House. They could not carry out business if great length of time was devoted to the discussion, not of the principle of compulsion or the power of the Estates Com missioners in certain cases to restore evicted tenants to their old holdings, even although they were now in the occupation of other tenants, but simply what was left, namely, who where the Commissioners to whom the duty should be entrusted, 1208 what power of appeal there should be from those men, the financial arrangements for the working out of the Bill, and the tenure of the-Estates Commissioners. If they could not discuss those points in two whole days then it was all up with Parliamentary discussion, and a Resolution, of this kind became a Parliamentary necessity. The late Government gave in regard to the Aliens Bill a corresponding length of time, and hon. Gentlemen said then that it would be a bad precedent. The late Government did not care; they had to get the Bill through, and they gob it through. If the House wasted time as they were doing at present on the Resolution which might be devoted to the-discussion of the measure itself, then he quite agreed that the guillotine would fall. It ought to be the object of the House to give a reasonable time only for the discussion of Parliamentary measures. The Government knew perfectly well that they could not hope to get the Bill through in two or three days, and so they had most reluctantly to come to the House in order to be armed with the power. He was afraid the time given to-the House would be largely wasted. Members on the Opposition side would discuss not the important but the un important points, and it might be there fore that the Bill would go to the House of Lords with some matters undiscussed which might very well have been discussed. That would not be the fault of the Government. With reference to the statement that the Bill might have been introduced at an earlier date, he had to say that it could not have been introduced earlier because the Government had not the material. They created an extra staff and put the Treasury to great expense in order to find out the facts, and they brought in the Bill as early as they could. The House had already discussed the two main principles of the Bill Nothing remained but the machinery, and the time they allowed the House to discuss the machinery was ample. He challenged hon. Gentlemen to say that they had not left ample time for the discussion of the proposals of the-Bill if the House would only devote the time to those points and not to idle irrelevant matters.
§ MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)
said he was sorry that the Government 1209 had found themselves unable to agree. The Prime Minister had told the House a few minutes ago that one of the results of this Motion would be that full time would be given to the discussion of the more important points of the Bill.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
expressed the hope that the Prime Minister would not be disappointed. He was directing attention to the fact that the Chief Secretary did not share the view of the Prime Minister. The Chief Secretary had just stated that he thought the time would be devoted to irrelevant discussions and that no notice would be taken at all of the more important points.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said he thought the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary might arrive at an agreement as to the effect of the Resolution before they came before the House. The Chief Secretary had stated that the Aliens Bill was a precedent for the course they were now taking. But that was exactly the contrary of the fact. The Aliens Bill was given five day's in Committee arid in addition the closure Motion was not moved until the Bill had been three days in Committee, showing that there was a marked difference between what was done in regard to the Aliens Bill and what was now pro posed. The Chief Secretary had complained somewhat unnecessarily that the present short debate was a waste of Parliamentary time. If that meant anything, it meant that the comment was well founded that the Government in future were to select their own legislation, and, having passed it by their Party majority through the Second Reading stage, they, without waiting to see what the attitude of the Opposition might be to the measure, were to decide what share of Parliamentary time was to be devoted to its consideration. He saw no waste of time whatever in considering a proposal of this kind. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Waterford speak as he had done with regard to the position of the Unionist Party with reference to this question. He had told them that they were prepared to object to any measure intended for the benefit of Ireland. He 1210 could hardly believe his ears when he heard that statement. The hon. Gentle man knew perfectly well that they had passed many measures for the benefit or Ireland. But in reference to this particular ease, while they accepted the principle repeatedly with regard to reinstating the evicted tenants with whom they were dealing in 1903—while they agreed that these should be reinstated, they never agreed that powers of so wholesale a character should be placed in the hands of any body in order to carry out a reinstatement which had gone many leagues beyond anything ever contemplated by any Party in the last Parliament. It had been said that the Motion of the hon. Member for North Armagh (in Committee, to report Progress) was dilatory. It was nothing of the kind. The Motion was meant to ascertain what were the intentions of the Government, and they had succeeded be yond their imagination. The Chief Secretary had complained that they had de bated the two main principles of the Bill, and stated that all the rest of the Bill was mere machinery. He was astonished that the Chief Secretary should have said that the question of an appeal to a tribunal for fixing the purchase price was a matter of machinery. He did not think that the Chairman of Committees would support the view the right hon. Gentleman had advanced in regard to Clause?. The ruling of the Chairman was that if they moved to reject Clause? all further references to the question of compulsion would be precluded. But in order to show that they were trying to meet the direction of the Chairman, they took the course which the Chairman thought would meet the interests of debate; they did not move to omit that clause, and they made a Motion for a direct debate on compulsion. But the Chief Secretary knew full well that there were parts of the Bill which they were now approaching, in which a great deal more than machinery was involved. What had to be considered was the form of the machinery by which effect was to be given to these compulsory powers. The Chief Secretary had stated that they were wasting the time of the House in asking that more time should be given, but in what the Chief Secretary called "mere machinery" they had to consider the not only existing rights of 1211 the owners of the land, who no doubt would have short shrift, but the rights of the existing tenants who had hitherto had advocates on the other side of the House, who were now prepared to hand them over to the more clamorous demands of the original tenants. The way in which those powers were to be exercised, the way in which those men were to be safeguarded, if the object of the Bill was to heal the sore—all these were not matters of machinery. Some of them were of vital importance to the existing tenants, many of whom were as poor as the tenants the Government were now asking to restore to their old holdings, and time ought to be given for their discussion. So far as he was concerned, he did not believe that in the debates that took place the other day a single Member on the Opposition side of the House advanced an argument which was not directly germane to the questions under discussion and practical. The proof of that was that the debates both days were brought to a conclusion in the ordinary way without the Minister in charge having to move the closure. That sup ported his view that there was not the slightest intention on the Opposition side of the House to do anything but put the case of those they represented before the House. That was the view which governed them last week and would govern them still. He regretted that the Government had found it necessary to intervene at this stage with a Motion of this kind without waiting to see what demands on the time of the House were likely to be made; and if there was time wasted the blame and the responsibility would rest on those who had initiated it.
§ MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)
said that the hon. Member for Water-ford had referred in almost indignant terms of protest to the fact that certain Unionist Members for England had tried to take part in the discussion. He ventured to protest, on the other hand, that this was still the United Kingdom. They had not yet passed a Home Rule Bill. As a representative of an English constituency he considered he had a perfect right to criticise any measure which affected any part of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members below the gangway did not hesitate to take 1212 part in debates on English Bills, and he did not see why English Members should not take an intelligent interest in Irish affairs. The Prime Minister in introducing this Resolution said he did not think that there ought to be any serious opposition to it, because they, on the Opposition side of the House, as a Party, were committed to the rein statement of the evicted tenants. He was not in the House when the Land Act of 1903 was passed, but he under stood that the Conservative Party were pledged only to reinstate the evicted tenants on the campaign estates. The hon. Member for East Mayo had then stated that there never had been more than 800 evicted tenants and that these had been reduced to 400; and therefore when the Government were going to force through in a high-handed manner a measure to reinstate 2,000 he did. not think that they were acting unreasonably if they protested. They had decided two important points—that the principle of compulsion should be applied generally, and applied not only to untenanted but to tenanted land. There were, how ever, certain very important principles yet to be settled, such as who was to decide what money was to be given for an estate. The Bill embodied for the first time in history that the person who bought land was also to fix the price. Then the Bill was going to divert money which had been devoted to a certain purpose by the Act of 1903, to another purpose. If the Resolution were passed the status of the Estates Commissioners and the tribunal to decide what amount of money was to be given would never be discussed. The real reason why the Bill had been brought forward was that it was necessary to the Government and to hon. Members below the gangway. Without it the Government could not have the support of the Irish Party, or at any rate, the benefit of their neutrality; and the Irish Party, whose political repute had been somewhat blown upon, would get their consolation prize after the fiasco of the Irish Council Bill, and be able to go back to their constituents with something in their hands.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)
said that the hon. Member for Waterford had stated that if this Bill was opposed on that side of the House they would be going back on the express 1213 pledges and undertakings given by the Tory Party in 1903. He most strongly objected to the Bill of that year as the worst ever introduced into the House of Commons, and voted against both the Second and the Third Readings. The present proceedings showed the futility of the former Bill. The proposal as to the allocation of time would, however, not only affect the Evicted Tenants Bill but the Water Board Bill for the Metropolis. The latter was fixed for to-morrow at a quarter past eight o'clock, but hon. Members interested in it would under this Resolution have to discuss it in the early hours of the morning. That was a double reason for objecting to the course which the Prime Minister asked the House to pursue. He had been a good many years in the House, and he never recollected closure by compartments being applied so brutally as it had been this session. They had had on this Bill one day's discussion, and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said that that was because it contained one vital principle. He did not deny that the principle of the Bill was vital to Ireland, but it might also be applied to England. Hon. Members below the gangway on that side were not interested in England, while hon. Members above the gangway opposite were desirous of purchasing the support of hon. Members below the gangway on that side. [Cries of "Oh."] Well he would say "acquiring." He did not want to be offensive. "Purchase" was a question of barter, and there was no doubt the sup port of hon. Gentlemen below the gang way would be given in consequence of this Bill. He would, however, use the word "acquiring." Hon. Members like himself, sitting above the gangway on the Opposition side of the House, were therefore more likely to be fair-minded with regard to this question than other hon. Members, because they had nothing to gain and nothing to lose in regard to it. All they desired was that justice should be done. He had no desire to obstruct the Bill; on the contrary, he wanted to get away. The Government ought not to be allowed to curtail discussion in this way. They might say that they did it because the end of July was approaching, but the hon. and learned Member for Waterford insinuated that if Ireland had been granted Home Rule there would have been no congestion of 1214 business. Irish business had, however, occupied very little of the time of the House this session, with the exception of the abortive discussion on the Irish Council Bill. The real reason was to be found in the Westminster Gazette, which, quoting from the Patronage Secretary, said the Government had put in their programme enough to last for three sessions. That was a Radical organ which agreed with the opinion of a gentleman who ought to know the condition of affairs better than anybody else. This Bill was not even in the King's Speech, but yet at the end of July the Government introduced the closure in order to prevent discussion on it. Under the new regulation the greater part of the Committee business of the House was done in another place, but they hoped that when measures were considered of sufficient importance to be dealt with in Committee in the House of Commons they would have a reasonable opportunity of discussion. They found, however, that the conditions which prevailed upstairs were to prevail in that House. If the Government had nothing to say in support of their Bills the closure was resorted to, and Bills were to be forced through without adequate discussion. He did not agree with the contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the House of Lords should have nothing to say in regard to Bills which had passed the House of Commons, but if they were not allowed to discuss the matter there, and the House of Lords were abolished, right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench would be responsible to no one but themselves. The question was a much more important one than that of forcing the Evicted Tenants Bill through, because the Government had come to the conclusion that it was not only necessary for them to introduce a Bill, but that if they introduced a Bill He was to be forced through without discussion, without an opportunity being given to the country of knowing what it was about, simply because a Radical Government had fathered the Bill. He had great belief in the privileges of the House of Commons, and considered that all their privileges were due to the free discussion and debate which had been in the past allowed. He denied that the Leader of the Opposition, had done a great deal to curtail the freedom of discussion in that House. The right 1215 hon. Gentleman had given great latitude for discussion to the Party opposite, and although he was rather opposed to the alterations which his right hon. friend made in the rules in 1902, those alterations did not stifle discussion in anything like the way which was now attempted. He was afraid that their voices and their pro tests would be useless, but all he could say was that if right hon. Gentlemen opposite could not do better than this in regard to business, it was time they gave way to a Government which could carry on business in the old-fashioned way, because he believed the feeling of the country was not in favour of the rights of minorities being ignored.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)
said he was not going to enter upon the stormy path of Irish affairs, as he had never trodden it, perhaps wisely, but there was a point of view which came home to him in regard to this matter. There was an English Land Bill before the House, and he supposed the same measure which was being dealt out to this Bill would be dealt out to that. The Prime Minister had said that there would be no hardship on hon. Members in the course pursued in this case, as the principles had been adequately discussed, and plenty of time had been allowed for the discussion of details. His experience in land legislation was, however, that the details were the most important part of the Bill. Liberty of speech had always been allowed in the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had twitted his right hon. friend with choking discussion, but the measures which lie took paled before the Resolution before the House. The point taken by his hon. friend as to the effect this Resolution would have upon important private business was a most important one, because Members would be invited to discuss an intricate question after eleven o'clock at night. He knew that the same proposals would be applied to the English measure, and that affected him, and "out of the fulness of the heart the mouth speaketh." There fore he made this protest.
§ MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)
fully agreed with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in reference to the Resolution and was surprised to find 1216 the Prime Minister saying that this Bill was generally agreed upon, and that if it were not passed the good intentions of the Land Act of 1903 would be defeated. Such a statement coming from the Prime Minister was a little astounding, as the number of evicted tenants reinstated under that Act considerably exceeded the expectations entertained at the time and the number which were supposed to be in existence. They were told that the provisions of the last Act so far as they affected evicted tenants had broken down; but in view of that fact that could not be so. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said he was always in favour of free discussion, but when they on that side asked to have a discussion on the Chief Secretary's Vote, the hon. and learned Gentleman and his followers below the gangway were pressing on the Government that the discussion of the Vote for a Department which occupied a secondary place in Irish public affairs should have precedence. It therefore appeared that the hon. and learned Gentleman was only interested in free discussion when he was interested in a measure. He entirely disagreed with the suggestion that had been made that the purposes of this discussion did not appertain, and were not proper, to the operations of the Bill under debate. He represented an agricultural constituency, and he protested against this Bill very strongly because it laid aside the case of the rent-paying, self-respecting farmer in favour of the fanner who did not recognise any moral or honourable obligations. Who were the evicted tenants on whose behalf this extreme piece of legislation was being pressed upon the House? It was wanted for those who were described as "wounded soldiers in the land war;" but they should be provided for by those who caused them to be wounded. They knew the Nationalist Party funds were now in a very prosperous state.
§ MR. BARRIE
said he, of course, bowed to the ruling of the Chair, and would conclude by saying that he only wished to protest in the strongest possible manner against a measure which affected every class in Ireland.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
said there was one thing that could be said in favour of the Motion—it was thoroughly logical. Its one object appeared to be to strangle all debate, and bring the House of Commons into abject contempt. It carried out the theory of the Government that the work of the House of Commons was simply to register the opinions of this wisest of all Governments, the Government which could win no by elections. The burning zeal felt for the Bill was shown by the attendance of Members in the House. Only a short time since he counted nine Members in the House—three of them Nationalists, and one Labour Member. Everyone knew that the Bill was a mere sop to buy off the Nationalist Party. All the Members from the North of Ireland, as trustees for their constituents who had been described in the past as the "lonely loyalists," felt that it was their duty to see that the Bill did not rob them. If the Government wanted to do something generous for the men who were finding support at the hands of the Nationalists let them not do it at the expense of the loyal constituencies. It should be done by the Nationalist Party who were able to find funds from all parts of the world. He protested against this attempt to silence discussion.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELL (Dublin University)
challenged the proposition of the Prime Minister that the principle of the Bill had been admitted on all sides of the House. There was an agreement that it was a desirable thing that the question of the evicted tenants should be adjusted by fair, honourable, and honest means, and that principle was agreed upon in the Act of 1903. What they agreed upon was to be found in an Act of Parliament. [Mr. BIRRELL: Why did you not carry it out?] If the only way of carrying out the concordat of 1903 was that which the Government were taking they had a very curious notion of carrying out their duty in respect to it. The concordat in 1903, agreed to in terms by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway and hon. Gentlemen opposite, distinctly promised as an essential condition of the settlement by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, who was in charge of the Bill, that there was to be no compulsion of any kind. It was all to be carried out as a matter of free 1218 bargain; and the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and the hon. Member for East Mayo went out of their way to reiterate to the House that they would be no party to any demand for compulsion as against so-called "grabbers" or "planters." It was therefore ludicrous to say that the Bill was merely carrying out the principle already adopted, and embodied in the Act of 1903, which had been steadily and successfully administered ever since on the line of no compulsion and free bargaining. There had been no suggestion in any part of the House that the other great object of the Act of 1903, namely, the conversion of ordinary tenants into purchasing owners, was in any way to give priority to the question of evicted tenants; the settlement was effected on the lines that those objects were to run pari passu without preference being given to either in favour of the other. The hon. and learned Member had said that the object of the Bill was merely to carry out the pledges given in 1903. For the first time in his experience the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Party behind him were, he regretted to have to say, themselves deliberately and flagrantly violating an honourable pledge given in 1903. That pledge had been referred to over and over again, not merely in the House but in another place. Everyone knew perfectly well that had it not been for a distinct and honourable agreement that there was to be no sort of compulsion for the restoration of evicted tenants, the provision made in the Act of 1903 for these tenants would not have escaped criticism nor received the support it had obtained from all parts of the House. Therefore, he denied that this Bill in any shape or form was carrying out the Act of 1903; on the contrary, it was a violation of the principle of the Act. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, who had spoken of the changed attitude of Members below the gangway on the question of the closure, had said that their opposition to closure had been in connection with coercion Bills. But what was there in the Bill under discussion but coercion? There never was introduced a Bill which contained more of the principle of coercion than the present measure; compulsion was 1219 to be found in every clause of it, from beginning to end. It proposed to compel the landlords to part with their property and to compel the sitting tenants to surrender their holdings. If that was not a measure of coercion he did not know what was. If the hon. and learned Gentleman and his followers were consistent, this was a measure of coercion which they should oppose. The coercion of the Unionist Government was coercion against crime and criminals; but here, they had coercion against law-abiding and peaceful citizens. It was coercion against men who had broken no law; it was coercion for the purpose of plunder, to take one man's property and pass it on to another, and to turn out existing tenants and put in their place men who had broken their con tracts. The Prime Minister had said that the principle of the Bill was admitted on all sides. He challenged him to refer to any Member on that side who had ever said he was in favour of compulsion. Ho believed he was himself the only one who had referred to that question, and what he had said was that if the Government could not accomplish the restoration of these evicted tenants in a reasonable-time without compulsion, and if they brought in a Bill for that purpose, giving the fullest and amplest protection to the owners and sitting tenants, even at the sacrifice of a principle which ho valued, he should, if necessity were shown, be prepared to give the matter-favourable consideration. But from beginning to end there had been no suggestion by any Member who took part in the debate on his side of the House that they would tolerate for one instant the principle of compulsion. The Chief Secretary said they had already discussed the two main principles of the Bill. He urged, however, that apart from principles, they refused time to discuss such important points as the-constitution of the tribunal, the finance of the Bill, and the tenure of the Estates Commissioners. It seemed to him that apart from these great principles they must discuss the terms on which they were to be carried out: they had been left no time in which to discuss the rest of the provisions of the Bill under which this power of compulsion was to be exercised. What was to be the compensation for the land, or how was the cost to be provided for? These were all 1220 matters of great importance, once the principle was admitted. For instance, there was the expropriation of the new tenants. Were they or were they not to act upon the pledge given in another place that bona fide farmers were not to be disturbed? Was not that a matter worthy of discussion? If the Amendments with regard to compulsion and expropriation were to be discussed at any decent or reasonable length it would be impossible to have any time left for the discussion of the other three great principles involved—the constitution of the tribunal, the finance, and the-tenure of the Estates Commissioners. He had been rather astonished to hear the Prime Minister say that the second great object of the Bill was to get rid of the sitting tenant if he happened to have a holding from which a former tenant had been evicted. Were they then to understand that every sitting tenant in the occupation of a holding from which a former tenant had been evicted, was to be turned out?
§ *MR. SPEAKER
pointed out that the hon. Gentleman was going aside to discuss the Bill, and was not discussing the Motion before the House.
§ MR. JAMES CAMPBELL
said he had desired to point out that the statement of the Chief Secretary that bona fide farmers would not be disturbed was in conflict with the statement of the Prime Minister. Alarm had also been created by the statement of the Attorney-General for Ireland that it was desirable to get rid of these sitting tenants because they were centres of disturbance. That involved a question of the grossest injustice and hardship to individuals, and he and those around him considered that, the time at their disposal was not sufficient to enable them to obtain justice for these tenants unless they got an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he intended to insert somewhere in his Bill a provision which would carry out what he had declared was his object, namely, to protect all the sitting tenants who could show that they were bona fide farmers, carrying on the cultivation of their farms. Even now if they could receive some-assurance as to the course it was in tended to take as regarded the tribunal set up under the Bill, the limitations in reference to the new tenants, and the 1221 principle upon which compensation to the owner was to be provided for they might be able, within reasonable limits, to con fine the discussion to the period suggested. So long as they were left in the dark as to the intention of the Government with regard to the Bill, it was impossible for them to forego, so long as they could exercise it, their right of discussing in the fullest way every single Amendment of which they had given notice. For his own part, he had put down no Amendment on the Paper for
§ dilatory purposes. The only one he had put down was one which he thought would remove some of the injustice which the Bill would otherwise perpetrate. So long as the rules of the House and the Motion permitted, he and his friends would insist upon their right to discuss all the Amendments in the fullest and most ample manner.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 293;. Noes, 85. (Division List No. 296.)1225
|Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W.||Harworth, Arthur A.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hayden, John Patrick|
|Adkins, W. Ryland D.||Cooper, G. J.||Hazeton, Richard|
|Agnew, George William||Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd)||Hedges, A. Paget|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Helme, Norval Watson|
|Alden, Percy||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)|
|Allen. Charles P. (Stroud)||Cox. Harold||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)|
|Ambrose, Robert||Crean, Eugene||Henry, Charles S.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Crombie, John William||Herbert. T. Arnold (Wycombe)|
|Astbury, John Meir||Crosfield A. H.||Higham, John Sharp|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Cullinan, J.||Hobart, Sir Robert|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Dalziel, James Henry||Hobhouse, Charles E. H.|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)||Hogan, Michael|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Holland, Sir William Henry|
|Barker, John||Devlin, Joseph||Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N.)|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)||Horniman, Emslie John|
|Barran, Rowland Hirst||Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras. N.)||Illingworth, Percy H.|
|Beale. W. P.||Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.||Jackson, R. S.|
|Beauchamp, E.||Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Jacoby, Sir James Alfred|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Donelan, Captain A.||Jardine, Sir J.|
|Beck, A. Cecil||Duffy, William J.||Jenkins, J.|
|Bell, Richard||Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)||Jones, William(Carnarvonshire)|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)||Jowett, F. W.|
|Bertram, Julius||Dunne. Major E. Martin (Walsall)||Joyce, Michael|
|Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd)||Elibank, Master of||Kearley, Hudson E.|
|Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)||Erskine, David C.||Kelley, George D.|
|Birrell Rt. Hon. Augustine||Everett, R. Lacey||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Boland, John||Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Kettle, Thomas Michael|
|Boulton, A. C. F.||Farrell, James Patrick||Kilbride, Denis|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Ferguson, R. C. Munro||King. Alfred John (Knutsford);|
|Bramsdon, T. A.||Fiennes. Hon. Eustace||Lambert, George|
|Branch, James||Flynn, James Christopher||Lamont, Norman|
|Brodie, H. C.||Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)|
|Brunner. J. F. L. (Lanes, Leigh)||Freeman-Thomas, Freeman||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Fuller, John Michael F.||Lea. Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.)|
|Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Fullerton. Hugh||Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringtn)|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.)||Lehmann, R. C.|
|Bums, Rt. Hon. John||Gibb, James (Harrow)||Lever, A. Levy (Essex. Harwich)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Gilhooly, James||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Byles. William Pollard||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Lloy-George, Rt. Hon. David:|
|Cameron, Robert||Glendinning, R. G.||Lough, Thomas|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lundon, W.|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Gooch, George Peabody||Lupton, Arnold|
|Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Grant, Corrie||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick||Griffith, Ellis J.||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)|
|Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius||Mackarness, Frederic C.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.||Haipin, J.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.)|
|Claney, John Joseph||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis||MacVeigh, Charles(Donegal, E.)|
|Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)||Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)||M'Callum, John M.|
|Clough, William||Hart-Davies, T.||M'Hugh, Patrick A.|
|Clynes, J. R.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||M'Kean, John|
|Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Harwood, George||M'Killop, W.|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||M'Micking, Major G.|
|Maddison, Frederick||Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye)||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Mallet, Charles E.||Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)||Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)|
|Markham, Arthur Basil||Philipps, J. Wynford (Pembroke)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)||Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)||Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)|
|Marnham, F. J.||Pickersgill, Edward Hare||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)||Pollard, Dr.||Tennant, Sir Edward(Salisbury)|
|Massie, J.||Power, Patrick Joseph||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Masterman, C. F. G.||Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.)|
|Meagher, Michael||Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.)||Thorne, William|
|Meehan, Patrick A.||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Tillett, Louis John|
|Menzies, Walter||Radford, G. H.||Tomkinson, James|
|Micklem, Nathaniel||Rainy, A. Rolland||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Molteno, Percy Alport||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Money, L. G. Chiozza||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Ure, Alexander|
|Montagu, E. S.||Redmond, William (Clare)||Verney, F. W.|
|Mooney, J. J.||Rees, J. D.||Vivian, Henry|
|Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)||Renton, Major Leslie||Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)|
|Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Richards. T. F. (Wolverhampt'n)||Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)|
|Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Rickett, J. Compton||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Morrell, Philip||Ridsdale, E. A.||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)|
|Morse, L. L.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Murnaghan, George||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Murphy, John||Roche, Augustine (Cork)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Murray. James||Roche, John (Galway, East)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Myer, Horatio||Rogers, F. E. Newman||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Nicholls, George||Rowlands, J.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r)||Russell, T. W.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Nolan, Joseph||Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)||Whitehead, Rowland|
|Norman, Sir Henry||Sears, J. E.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Seaverns, J. H.||Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer|
|O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid)||Seddon, J.||Wiles Thomas|
|O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Seely, Major J. B.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick, B.)||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Sherwell, Arthur James||Williamson, A.|
|O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)||Silcock, Thomas Ball||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Sloan, Thomas Henry||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|O'Grady, J.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Winfrey, R.|
|O'Malley, William||Soares, Ernest J.||Young, Samuel|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Spicer, Sir Albert||Yoxall, James Henry|
|O'Shee, James John||Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Steadman, W. C.||Tellers for the Ayes—Mr.|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)||Whiteley and Mr. J. A.|
|Pearce, William(Limehouse)||Strachey, Sir Edward||Pease.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry||Hunt, Rowland|
|Ashley, W. W.||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond.||Courthope, G. Loyd||Kimber, Sir Henry|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Baring, Capt. Hn. G (Winchester)||Craik, Sir Henry||Lane-Fox, G. R.|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Liddell, Henry|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Du Cros, Harvey||Lockwood. Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Faber, George Denison (York)||Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)|
|Bowles, G. Stewart||Faber, Capt. W. V.(Hants, W.)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S).|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Fardell, Sir T. George||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Fell, Arthur||Lowe, Sir Francis William|
|Bull, Sir William James||Fletcher. J. S.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred|
|Butcher, Samuel Henry||Forster Henry William||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.||Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Carlile, E. Hildred||Gretton, John||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Hardy, Laurence (Kent. Ashford)||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Packer, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Cave, George||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.||Helmsley, Viscount||Percy, Earl|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)||Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Worc.)||Hornby, Sir William Henry||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert||Walrond, Hon. Lionel||Younger, George|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W).||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D (Strand)||Willams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)||Tellers for the Noes—Sir|
|Starkey, John R.||Wiloughby de Eresby, Lord||Alexander Acland-Hood|
|Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm||and Viscount Valentia.|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Turnour, Viscount||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
Question put, and agreed to.